Defining and Re-Defining Allegiance

How often do we think about what it means
to pledge allegiance to a group or a set of ideals? Are we truly
committed to hitching our personal wagons up with a mule team that, at
times, barrels down a path contrary to our moral compasses?

Do the ends justify the means and, if so, how long are we willing to wait for the roads to align?

When we put our hands over our hearts and stand silent as The Star Spangled Banner
swells, do we consider the modern complexities that still keep us from
achieving the potential we see as a birthright? Forget slavery and equal
rights for women, what about protecting us from ourselves? In the Queen
City, we’ve been squabbling over parking; we’re talking about parking
(shades of Allen Iverson) when the Senate can’t even rally around the
basest of notions — background checks on gun sales.

No national registry, the other side
argues, but guess what? A national registry wasn’t even part of the
legislation in question, although I don’t see why not. We register cars
and no one screams about this impinging upon our civil liberties.

I grew up at a time (and in a state) when
I was taught gun safety during physical education classes in middle
school — hell, we shot at targets in the school gymnasium — and were
allowed to get a hunting license.

I had a hunting license before I entered
junior high. Let me tell you, I think I realized even then that there
was something wrong with this situation, but that was part of my
all-American upbringing.

The current gun debate is troubling, though, because I find myself conflicted over an unlikely ally.

Related content

MSNBC’s Morning Joe
host, Joe Scarborough, has been castigating his Republican comrades
over their wrong-headed position on this issue, but he does so with a
battle cry that grates my nerves.

His deafening mantra is that you need
background checks to protect us from “the rapists and terrorists” among
us who have easy access to guns.

Scarborough is less vocal about his
stance on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, but where I take
offense with him is over “the rapists and terrorists” who, in order of
concern, should probably be much further down the priority list.

Our focus on guns has come as a result of
school shootings, attacks at malls and movie theaters, where multiple
lives have been lost at once. Thanks to logic like Scarborough’s, we end
up lost in the weeds rather than planting the seeds of change.

Does it matter if our reasons and
rationales are at odds if somehow, despite the specifics, we fall on the
same side of the issue? I’ve been debating that question with my wife
over the last couple of weeks, beginning with Sen. Rob Portman’s
announcement of his public embrace of same-sex marriage after revealing
that his son is gay. My wife believes such changes, especially for
Republicans, based on personal impact rather than a larger moral
imperative, are less convincing.

Not merely playing Devil’s advocate, I
pointed out that almost every change of heart requires a certain degree
of personal investment, so why does it matter?

Yet, here I am quibbling over an alliance
of principle founded on what I attest to be shaky ground. But there’s
far more at stake when it comes to gun policy.

There are too many factions splintering
the debate, muddying the waters. Red states versus blue states. Rural
versus urban. The NRA administrative body versus the rank and file
membership. Fear versus awareness. So, you can see how easy it is to
throw up arguments or spin the data to confuse and confound the public.

In fact, I hate hearing the polling
numbers on background checks. All of the rallying cries state that this
is a “90/10” issue with 90 percent of the public in favor of some level
of checks, but I can’t trust that number and neither should you. We’re
talking about respondents to surveys with smaller sample sizes than
we’re aware of, and that means, just like with elections, we’re never
truly capturing anything close to even 50 percent of the American
public.

I would be more inclined to take notice
if that “90/10” number included all of the people I see at sporting
events with their hands over their hearts.

We need a bit more mindfulness and maybe a
little less blind, thoughtless passion. Let’s make some hard decisions
about who we are and acknowledge the “strange” diversity of our
bedfellows.